Obama comes clean on Iran! According to Hagel, the administration favors “containment.” I could barely “contain” my excitement! Despite official denials, many of us had long suspected that, lacking any stomach for preventing a nuclear Tehran, Washington would settle for “containing” them.

…Unfortunately, as Hillary said the other day, “our policy is prevention, not containment.” So five minutes later the handlers discreetly swung into action to “contain” Hagel. “I was just handed a note that I misspoke,” he announced, “that I said I supported the president’s position on containment. If I said that, I meant to say that we don’t have a position on containment.” Hagel’s revised position is that there is no position on containment for him to have a position on.

…Containment? Prevention? What difference does it make? Could happen to anyone. I well remember when Neville Chamberlain landed at Heston Aerodrome in 1938 and announced the latest breakthrough in appeasement: “I have here a piece of paper from Herr Hitler.” Two minutes later, he announced, “I have here a second piece of paper from my staffer saying that I misspoke.” Who can forget Churchill’s stirring words in the House of Commons? “If, indeed, it is the case that I said, ‘We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender!’ then I misspoke. I meant to say that we’re keeping the situation under review and remain committed to exploring all options.”

It’s easy to make mistakes when you’re as expert in all the nuances of Iranian affairs as Chuck Hagel. After he’d hailed Iran’s “elected, legitimate government,” it fell to another Democrat, Kirsten Gillibrand, to prompt Hagel to walk it back. Okay, delete “elected” and “legitimate”:

“What I meant to say, should have said, is that it’s recognizable.”

“Recognizable”? In the sense that, if you wake up one morning to a big mushroom cloud on the horizon, you’d recognize it as the work of the Iranian government? No, by “recognizable,” he meant that the Iranian government is “recognized” as the government of Iran.

“It’s somewhere between baffling and incomprehensible,” a member of Mr. Obama’s own team of advisers on Iran said on Thursday night when asked about Mr. Hagel’s stumbling performance on the question during the all-day hearing. The worry was evident in the voice of the official, who would not speak on the record while criticizing the performance of the president’s nominee. For those who question whether the no-containment cornerstone of the Obama approach to Tehran is for real, or just diplomatic rhetoric, Mr. Hagel clearly muddled the message, he said.

It was an embarrassing performance, but fitting. And still the Democrats are in support of the nomination:

“I don’t think he’s going to lose any Democratic votes, that we know of,” Sen. Carl Levin told reporters after the hearing. “I think there’s at least a few Republicans who’ve already said, publicly, that they support his nomination.” When pushed, he could barely name two. “What I’ve heard—I’ve heard that Sen. Cochran, and I’ve heard Sen. Murkowski. That’s third hand. If nobody in this crew has heard that Sen. Murkowski is inclined, then I will withdraw that comment.”

Unbelievable.

But so far Sen. Coats, Sen. Kirk, and Sen. Blunt have all stated they will vote no on Hagel. I’m sure the Democrats are hoping for a few Republican defectors but if all 45 oppose him I’m betting a few Democrats won’t walk the plank for him.

The question is whether there are a few good men or women—serious liberals willing to speak truth to power, honorable Democratic senators willing to put country before party—who will step forward to sink the Hagel nomination.

It will be revealing about the state of liberalism and the condition of the Democratic party if there are none. It wasn’t pleasant in 2005 for conservatives and Republicans to oppose a nominee—in this case a close friend—of a president they supported. It certainly wasn’t pleasant to seem to give any comfort to the president’s critics. Still, to use a corny but apt expression, it was the right thing to do. And a willingness to do it was a sign of the health of American conservatism.

American liberalism shows no such sign of health. Liberals are pretending not to recognize that Hagel is manifestly unqualified. A few have the wit to argue in excuse that associate justice of the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment while secretary of defense is not. On the other hand, the damage an incompetent secretary of defense could do over the next four years is very great. Even a liberal can see that.

Conservatives and Republicans will stand firm in opposing Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense. They will do so with a clear conscience, basing their opposition on his obvious unsuitability for the position. Are liberals and Democrats willing to sell their souls for . . . Chuck Hagel?

8 Responses to “Surely liberal Senators can see how unqualified Chuck Hagel is for Secretary of Defense right?”

Nan G

On the Senate Armed Services Committee Democrats outnumber Republicans 14 to 12 so Hagel will get out of committee.
At least 50 of the 55 Senators who are Democrats will also vote for Hagel.
Then there’s Biden to break the tie.
I don’t see any way his poor performance prevents this.
The Senate does not look at things from that viewpoint.
Performance, merit, getting a job done…..none of those things matter in the Senate.

Hard Right

FAITH7

I suspect his nomination has an ‘angle’ to it….the left always has an ‘angle’….something up their sleeves….a card they pull out and use against….the other side….umm…what is the ‘angle’ they are trying to use here..hmm??? THAT is the question.

Lynn Westrich

Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearings show he is a man whose mind is deteriorating. He cannot think quickly which would render him useless in a time of crisis. He stammers and stumbles and cannot clearly answer any question put to him by the Senate. Pitiful to watch someone who clearly is not qualified to lead or command our military. He cannot even defend himself so this is a dangerous situation to place him in a position where American lives are at stake.

ilovebeeswarzone

Lynn Westrich
HAGEL IS A YES MR PRESIDENT,
that’s why OBAMA CHOOSE HIM,
he and HILARY SAID THEY ARE LIKE OBAMA,
and KERRY is the one who squeal on his VIETNAM BROTHER IN ARMS,
YOU DON’T WANT HIM ON THAT JOB, NOW WHAT TO SAY
ABOUT THE MANY ZERO SIGNATURE OTHER NOMINE, IT DOESN’T LOOK RICH,
BUT AS LONG AS THEY PRAISE PUBLICLY OBAMA THAT SUFFICE TO NOMINATE THEM ALL.
LIKE HILARY SAID; WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE,
THEY ARE ALL DEAD

Nan G

The Army has stopped serving cooked breakfasts to some of the U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan as part of its drawdown, a move that prompted troops to write home asking their families and friends to send care packages with cereal, breakfast bars and other foods.

The Army told the Washington Guardian the current cutbacks began Jan. 1, and affect about 2,700 soldiers deployed in forward operating bases in more remote areas of Afghanistan.
….

How many cooked breakfasts for soldiers would Obama’s 20 million dollar Hawaii vacations and the 1.4 billion that his clan’s non-stop partying buy?
How many people in Chicago on food stamps have to skip breakfast?
Where is CONGRESS?
How does Hagel feel about this?

ilovebeeswarzone

Nan G
what is that new rule? no breakfast for the TROOPS in A CRAZY WAR DYING
OR LOSING THEIR LIMBS, BEING SHOT IN THE BACK
BY THE ONE THEY TEACH TO DEFEND THEMSELF,
NO BREAKFAST? AND THE PENTAGONE ORDER IT TO ANSWER THE PRESIDENT ORDERS?
WHAT THE HELL THE PENTAGONE DON’T DENY IT,
AND TELL THE PRESIDENT YOU GO YOU KNOW WHERE I THINK YOU SHOULD GO,
THE MILITARY SHOULD ARREST ALL THE WHOLE WHITE HOUSE AND LOCK THE KITCHEN AND THE OTHER WHO EVER THEY ARE,
THE MILITARY SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE MILITARY TO NOT HAVE BREAKFAST,
HELL LET ‘S CUT THE WHITE HOUSE, BUT FEED THE SOLDIERS,
DON’T TAKE THAT ORDER, WHAT IS IT WITH THE PENTAGONE ?
DO YOU FORGET YOUR PRIORITY IS TO PROTECT YOUR MILITARY AND ANY RANK THEY ARE,
HELL CUT YOUR OWN BREAKFAST,
THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE , THIS IS VICIOUS BUNCH OF DEMOCRATS CUT YOUR OWN FOOD,
BUT DON’T YOU DARE CUT THE MILITARY,
WARO YOU’RE A WAKO
WHEN YOU GET SO DESPERATE MUCH TO THAT EXTREME, BRING THE TROOPS HOME AND SAVE AMERICA’S PRIDE,
IF YOU DON’T HAVE ANY PRIDE, SAVE THE MILITARY’S PRIDE,
YOU BUNCH OF LOW CLASS NITWITT,
YOU CANNOT WAIT TO CUT THE MILITARY, AND PUT THEM IN AN EMBARASSMENT OUTSIDE OF THEIR COUNTRY,
YOU HAVE NO SHAME